Re: Ulster
County Industrial Development Agency’s proposal for PILOT responsibility

Dear Mr. Hein, Mrs. Bernardo, et al.:

This letter is to address the many
concerns we have regarding the UCIDA’s proposal to assume responsibility for
PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) for housing projects including: “affordable,
workforce, senior and dormitory.”

I represent a citizen action group and
was among several dozen people who attended the UCIDA’s public hearing on
August 1 who are opposed to such a change for reasons enumerated below:

1. Of primary importance is that if
UCIDA’s proposed change is passed it would bypass town government and
town government is most local and closest to the people it represents. In
effect UCIDA would provide the opportunity for a developer to by-pass a town’s
regulatory process and impose itself upon a town which may not want, need or
be able to afford such housing projects. We are in agreement with the town
of Saugerties which rejects and strongly opposes the proposed amendments to the
Ulster County Industrial Development Agency’s Uniform Tax Exemption Policy. This
practice would make government yet one more step further from its citizens.

2. There is no valid reason that the
UCIDA needs to grant housing PILOTS in order to fulfill its mission of
industrial development. There is no need for this type of housing on behalf of
the local residents and past housing projects have attracted out of town
developers and non residents to Ulster County for which Ulster County residents
have had to support. One example is the “affordable” housing project in
Woodstock which residents believed would be for local struggling artists only
to find that now it is being filled through the use of a lottery system which
includes all residents of New York State. New York State has long been known as
the welfare state and Ulster County is preferred for many reasons as an easier
place to obtain benefits. These types of housing projects result in increased
strain on the local property tax paying citizens who bear the burden, thus
making it increasingly difficult for residents to continue to live
independently. Anyone traveling through the hamlets, villages or towns of
Ulster County will readily identify that there is an overabundance of vacant
housing and most landlords report having a current vacancy rate of over 50%.

3. At the August 1, pubic hearing the
UCIDA chairman stated that one advantage of having the UCIDA would be enforcing
that the developer/ owner pay their taxes. We don’t need the UCIDA to do
that because there is already one in existence. It’s in existence for
every property owner and it’s called the property tax auction. Why not
use the law that’s in place and apply it to all in a fair manner?

4. The UCIDA’s proposal contains a specific
ridiculously low dollar amount for a 25 year period which the owner would
pay in taxes with “affordable housing” being the least amount and dormitory
housing being the highest. So although the UCIDA claims that there would be
uniformity in PILOTs it is common knowledge that college towns such as New
Paltz and Stone Ridge (Marbletown) would be the Dormitory locations while towns
such as Saugerties would be allocated the "Affordable.” Furthermore, it is
unreasonable to set a dollar rate when no taxpayer is given such an advantage
especially as most are bracing for hyper-inflation. Even under the NY State Tax
Law 581A tax payments are reassessed periodically.

5. In taking the PILOT decision making
process from the towns, those making the decisions are accountable to no
one. The UCIDA staff is voluntary and not elected. While they may have to
answer to the County Executive or County Legislature, the citizen’s voice is
further removed and barely audible. One such example is SACRED (Saugerties
Assertive Citizens for Responsible Economic Development) which has requested
more than once to meet with the County Executive but that request was denied.

6. Conglomerate housing, for which the
UCIDA is proposing to grant PILOTs, while consistent with plans for United
Nations Agenda 21 and ICLEI, is not environmentally friendly, nor
mentally, physically or spiritually healthy. Its mission is to eliminate single
family homes and have all humans living in conglomerate housing. These housing
projects demolish many acres of land, cause strain on existing water and sewage
systems while causing current housing structures to be abandoned due to
financial strain on a single family homeowner. It alienates people from a
free-flowing daily communion with nature; it is contrary to self-sufficiency
and independence and promotes dependency and alienation from the land and the
means to sustain oneself.

7. Conglomerate housing, (called
euphemistically workforce, affordable, dormitory or senior) is contrary to
integration. It creates a ghetto and structures by which its residents are
categorically classified and identified. While it may make it easier for
residents to be located by agents of control, it deprives humans of
individuality. Children residing in such structures are readily identified
by the required characteristics to reside there. Residents, by definition of
their housing, are labeled as poor, working poor, old, sick, etc. and
prevented from true integration into the existing community. It deprives
residents of their individual rights and they must meet routine inspections and
their behavior must be acceptable to the rules of the conglomerate housing
authority. For example residents may not be allowed to play musical instruments
such as saxophones or electric guitars.

Formerly known as housing projects,
which were by all definitions were failures and came to be identified with
poverty and an inability to move forward, these old ideas come to us
camouflaged with new labels.

The UCIDA has no need to grant PILOTs
for housing. The proposal is destructive and it is poorly designed. The UCIDA
should not be given the ability to usurp power from the towns or to grant
PILOTS for any type of human habitation but should keep its focus on promoting
industry rather than control of human beings.

Sincerely,

GC, LCSWR

SACRED Member

UCIDA’s assumption of PILOT serves
no other purpose than to squelch democracy and support its corruption. Shame on
you.

PO Box 130

West Shokan, NY 12494

August 15, 2012

Mr. Mike Hein

Ulster County Executive

224 Fair Street

Kingston, NY 244 12421.

Dear Mr. Hein:

I am writing in opposition to UCIDA's assumption of responsibility for the
payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program. Centralization's efficiencies are
illusory, for they are non-existent in the long run. Ulster County does
not need public housing and it
certainly does not need decisions about zoning or tax subsidization made at the
county level.

If you are seeking
efficiencies, then I suggest that you abolish UCIDA. It claims to support
economic development, but Ulster County has lagged the rest of the country
economically precisely because of UCIDA and a long list of other failed
government programs. If a
doctor prescribes a cure, it fails, and he continues prescribing it, then he is
guilty of malpractice. If politicians prescribe a cure, it fails,
and they continue prescribing it, then they are engaging in Ulster County and
New York politics.

In my lifetime more New
Yorkers have fled this
state than have remained. Put another way, a higher rate of New Yorkers
have fled New York than fled the European tyrannies from which my ancestors
escaped to come to New York. They have fled New York because of programs
like UCIDA.

Public housing does not
promote industrial growth or economic progress. It amounts to public
subsidization of slums. Cluster housing, especially in rural areas like
Olive, where I live, harms the environment; it is ideologically motivated
and serves no public purpose.You aim to centralize it in order to shield
decisions concerning developers like RUPCO and Steve Aaron from public
scrutiny. UCIDA’s assumption of PILOT serves no other purpose
than to squelch democracy and support its corruption. Shame on you.

Google Custom Search

Pages

Mitchell Langbert

About Me

I have researched and written about employee benefit issues and in my previous life was a corporate benefits administrator. I am currently associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. I hold a Ph.D. from the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, an MBA from UCLA and an AB from Sarah Lawrence College. I am working on a project involving public policy. I blog on academic and political topics.